Talking about my generation: exploratory insights from water policy makers in British Columbia

Theorists argue we are in the midst of a ‘generational war’. This conflict involves a clash in environmental, social and economic values between Millennials, Generation X (or Gen X) and Baby Boomers (or Boomers), reflected in the ‘OK Boomer’ meme. While theories typically treat public policy-making organizations as unitary bodies, some studies show that individual values matter to policy change (see Simon, 1947; Brunsson & Sahlin-Andersson, 2000; De Boer et al., 2007; Waeraas, 2018). However, the source of these values, any differences, and their implications, are not well understood.

There is a large literature documenting generational-value differences that are becoming more acute and driven by pressures such as climate change and economic inequity, and shaped by rapid social and technological change (Gonyea & Hudson, 2020; Hautea et al., 2021; Manfredo et al. 2021). In this study, we examine whether generational-value differences could also be a source of individual value divergence (and conflict) inside public water agencies. We take this a step further and ask the question: do generational values matter for water policy and if so, what are the implications?

We ask this through three questions in what is the first study of this kind related to a public water policy organization:

• Q1) Are there generational differences in attitudes towards organizational culture in the public agency?

• Q2) Are there generational differences in regard to perceived water policy priorities and goals (organizational mission)?

• Q3) Are there generational differences in how people perceive water agencies should carry out its mission (policy principles)?

To accomplish this, we surveyed public water policy officials in British Columbia (BC), Canada, where transformative changes are being considered to water policy, or the processes for determining how water is regulated and managed, including a shift towards a more ecosystem-based approach; along with changes in water governance, or the broader institutional framework that determines the rules and processes for water policy, including collaborative governance arrangements with Indigenous Peoples (First Nations) (von der Porten & de Loë, 2013, 2014).

We next present literature on generational theory, then detail on the context on British Columbia followed by the methods, results and then the discussion and conclusions.

Mannheim (1970) observed that generations form a group ‘based upon the consciousness of belonging to one generation’ (p. 165); where members find a ‘common location in the social and historical process’ of their times (p. 168). This predisposes people with shared experiences and worldviews, or ‘social frames’. Generational theory provides that while people change as they age, the nature of these changes is unique and consistent for each generation. Fisher (2018) argued that the ‘generation one comes of age politically is an important determinant in one's political identity’ (p. 35). Fisher found, for example, that Boomers were more libertarian and favoured less government intervention; Gen X was more individualistic and took a more personalized view of politics; and Millennials were ‘left-leaning’ and distinct in their policy preferences from older generations. Typically, these political identities remain consistent as people age; and as demographics change, such as Millennials becoming the largest voting bloc, these differences have important implications for politics and society.

There has been a plethora of studies since Mannheim's seminal work, using generational constructs as an analytical variable, and the finding suggests that this shapes attitudes to social issues (Whittier, 1997), to work (Kowske et al., 2010; Benson & Brown, 2011), preferred leadership style (Arslan et al., 2022), and motivation to join the public sector (see Ertas, 2016; Ng et al., 2016). The Pew Research Centre (2018) found relationships between political affiliation and generations in the US, where older generations favoured less government intervention such as environmental regulations. Ballew et al. (2020) found that across party lines, younger generations, like Millennials, were more likely to perceive a need for climate action and were more willing to engage in activism than older generations. In the United States, Marlon et al. (2022) found Millennials and Gen X Republicans were more likely to agree that global warming was caused by humans, compared to older Republicans. These findings were confirmed in a broader survey by Funk (2021), where Millennials were more likely than Boomers to favour significant climate action policies, including carbon taxes, and the banning of ‘fracking’.

Haber et al. (2022) found that Millennials were more concerned about Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) issues for investing than Boomers, even if it resulted in lower investment returns. Boomers also favoured shorter investment time horizons. In the UK, the Policy Institute, Kings College (2021) found that all generations placed importance on climate change and biodiversity loss, particularly Boomers, though Millennials were significantly more likely to agree that environmental concerns should be prioritized over economic growth. Conversely, in Brazil, Severo et al. (2017) found that Boomers were more sensitized to sustainable consumption than younger generations. It is theorized by Gonyea & Hudson (2020) that these generational differences on environmental issues are becoming more acute because of the pressures of rapid ecological, social and ecological change. Taylor (2016) goes so far as to argue that the differences ‘pit’ the generations against each other.

One area where these generational differences have been heavily scrutinized is in attitudes to work, with most attention on the private sector, where studies have found variation in the values and personality traits among generational cohorts (Sobrino De-Toro et al., 2019), as well as in work values and attitudes, preferred leadership, teamwork, work–life balance and career patterns (Lyons & Kuron, 2014). Generational differences are also documented in approaches to learning, communication, and attitudes towards technology (Sprinkle & Ulrich, 2017; Stewart et al., 2017). On work-related sustainability issues, Rank & Contreras (2021) found Millennials were slightly different from Generation X, however, this is not as significant as generally believed, and they also found gender effects. In China, Lu et al. (2023) found positive relationships between employer social responsibility and the retention of Millennial employees. Hershatter & Epstein (2010) documented that Millennials were most inclined to work within existing institutional structures for change, rather than transforming them – in stark difference to Gen X, who were less trusting of existing structures and were creating their own paradigms and structures to solve complex problems. There are far fewer studies exploring generational attitudes towards work in public agencies; with one of the few examining the waning affective motivations of Millennials to enter public service due to competition from employment in non-profits (see Ng, Gossett & Winter, 2016).

There is a debate as to whether these attitudes towards work reflect generational differences or whether or not people's work-related values may change over time (Jin & Rounds 2012). Some researchers have concluded that generational differences are mostly related to age and developmental experiences, rather than part of a discrete social-cohort (Giancola, 2006; Macky et al., 2008), with a recent report by the US National Academy arguing that most generation-workplace studies conflated life effects with generational cohorts (National Academy of Sciences, 2020), a refrain echoed by other authors (Glenn, 1976; Pritchard & Whiting 2014; Rudolph et al., 2018). One of the challenges in disentangling the two is the difficulty in finding data that allow one to separate the effects; but even here there is evidence that there may be subtle generational effects, with Kuron et al. (2015) documenting how each generation's work values shifted in similar ways as they matured in the workforce. Whittier (1997) confronted this challenge of whether it is generation or life experience, examining attitudes towards feminism between activists from different generations and interviewing them over different periods of time. She found that generational differences persisted over time, suggesting that at least when it came to social values, generational cohorts played a key role in explaining individuals' social values and attitudes.

As policy requires value choices, and not all values can be achieved, there are inevitable conflicts. This situation is particularly acute for natural resources, where historically the key challenge has been balancing economic development with environmental protection (Stavins, 2004). Indeed, as citizens become more involved in natural resource decisions, Kennedy et al. (1998) described the role of natural resource public agencies as akin to ‘social value brokers’, where agencies work through values and determine trade-offs in consultative ways. Yet, there are few studies examining how this plays out within policy organizations, and the role of individual values of members of the public sector organization in this process, and how these individual values interact with other individuals in the organization and the institution's own values.

At a time of forest policy change in BC, Lertzman et al. (1996) documented two different policy paradigms held by policy makers existing in the public forest agency. One was rooted in the view that economic values were a priority versus environmental values, while the other believed environmental values took precedence over economic values. Lertzman and colleagues did not analyse the effect of these differences, though they did theorize that the second paradigm oriented towards sustainability was likely held by younger policy makers, and that over time the agency would transition towards this paradigm.

Cramer et al. (1993) found somewhat similar attitudes within the US Forest Service, although these were rooted in professional disciplines with biologists, foresters and engineers each viewing the US Forest Service's mission differently, and each having their own ideas as to how important stakeholders were to the agency's mission. Foresters considered stakeholders had more standing in decisions than the other professions and supported more multiple-value decision-making compared to engineers and biologists. Engineers reported their mission as managing forests for timber, emphasized cost-effectiveness in evaluating policy decisions and did not consider public involvement as important. Biologists saw their mission as ‘managing ecosystems’ more than foresters and engineers; and they viewed the broader public as important in decision-making.

In another set of studies of the US Forest Service, and at a time of social change, Bullis & Kennedy (1991) found similar differences, although they also noted a convergence in professional values in two surveys over a period of 5 years, where engineers, biologists and foresters all converged on a more biocentric view of people and nature. Biologists maintained their biocentric view, the foresters' values became more diffuse, and less aligned with the Forest Service's stated mission, and the engineers focused less on cost effectiveness. The authors argued these changes may be a result of the interactions of foresters and engineers with biologists, and that the conflict and interaction of these professions within the organization was leading to a shift in organizational values over time. Finally, Jacobson et al. (2022) documented individual differences among employees within state conservation organizations towards agency priorities associated with maintaining hunting and fishing opportunities versus protecting wildlife.

None of these studies examined whether or not generational differences in values manifested themselves, whether it was in regard to work, organizational goals or how the ways in which the organization should carry out its work. However, we note that these have been shown to be a consistent source of difference in private-sector studies.

There is a relative dearth of literature on how value-difference and conflict play out within public water agencies. Despite this, the literature suggests two important implications that may arise. First, Kaufman (2006) in his classic study of the US Forest Service identified that a cohesive organizational culture was key for effective and decentralized decision-making by forest rangers. Kaufman theorized that competing social values could lead to a fragmented culture and undermine decision-making, and therefore to maintain organizational effectiveness, agencies must find ways to internally harmonize competing values and build cohesive organizational cultures. Water policy is laden with values that are polarized and competing: to whom should water be allocated and for what purposes? Should industry be a priority or the environment? There are trade-offs between values that are irreconcilable especially where water availability is limited. Thus, harmonizing values internally and creating a cohesive culture, particularly between generations, may be challenging.

This process is dynamic in Figure 1; people's ability to learn and develop and internalize schema depends on the organizational culture in which they are embedded, that may enhance or impede the learning process (point 4). These schema and their underlying values shape attitudes as to what policy priorities are important and what policy solutions (or ideas) are preferred (points 5). The policy process is influenced by these priorities and ideas (point 6) and may lead to policy change, or not (point 7).

Generational differences may disrupt the problem-sensing, learning and policy change process outlined in Figure 1, leading to challenges for policy change. There may also be opportunities for individual and collective learning, if it is structured in ways to support understanding that then feeds into policy development.

British Columbia passed the Water Sustainability Act in 2014, replacing the century old Water Act. The new statute, taking effect in 2016, aimed to protect aquatic health through environmental flows, introduced measures to better deal with water scarcity, and strengthened long-term water planning and allocation decisions (among other goals) (Ministry of Environment, 2013). The modern statute also provided for more collaborative water planning processes with First Nations. However, First Nations in British Columbia argued their unique values and constitutionally protected rights were absent and ignored in the new legislation, and their voices were not heard in the consultation phase (von der Porten & de Loë, 2014).

In their study on First Nations and non-First Nations water policy makers, von der Porten & de Loë (2014) documented that provincial water officials did not see First Nations as having jurisdiction over water and instead saw them simply as ‘stakeholders’; while First Nations argued for a broad recognition and implementation of their water rights. Some scholars viewed the new legislation as a missed opportunity to address the province's shortcomings in water policy around governance, particularly deepening co-governance with First Nations (Gullason, 2018). British Columbia has also been slow to introduce more economic-based instruments as a way to improve the efficiency of water use (Renzetti, 2005).

In this complex and contested space for water policy in British Columbia, we investigate water policy makers' individual characteristics, and whether, there are any generational differences in their attitudes and beliefs towards the status quo in water management; how they perceived their organizations' values and priorities; and their willingness to consider new ideas such as the adoption of economic instruments and involving First Nations in water governance.

We surveyed water policy makers through an anonymous online survey, during the implementation of the new Water Sustainability Act using cross-sectional measures to understand the effect of age, gender, education, job position, and experience on values, and policy preferences and priorities (Whittier, 1997). This period of data collection during 2016–2017 followed the recognition of Aboriginal title in 2014 (a unique and exclusive form of First Nation's land rights in Canada), changing public expectations for water governance, and legislation that expanded the range of policy possibilities including co-governance. This allowed us to capture a moment where different values were alive and there was no clear consensus on how best to move forward on water policy.

We constructed an integrative framework of values, using five-point Likert scales (from strongly disagree at 1, to strongly agree at 5) to understand the relative importance of respondents' preferred priorities towards water management (environmental, economic, social and cultural); how they perceived their organizational culture in regard to certain aspects such as trust, openness and innovation (among others), and to what extent they saw their own values aligning with their organization's values; their opinion as to whether the status quo in water management was working; their views on different approaches towards water management, including the use of more economic-based instruments in managing water; and different ideas for increasing First Nations involvement in water governance.

These latter two sets of questions above reflect different paradigms for managing water. Howlett (2000) notes a shift in the United States towards a more business-oriented approach in how agencies see their mission and suggests that the same pressure exists in Canada; the potential use of ‘neo-liberal’ economic instruments has been advocated in Canada to improve efficiency (Renzetti, 2005) and involves ideas such as water trading, water pricing and assigning water ownership, but has not been implemented.

The involvement of First Nations is a newer policy imperative: while it reflects a broader move towards more participatory governance (see, for example, Nikolakis & Grafton, 2021), it also reflects the changing policy framework in British Columbia and Canada (Nikolakis & Hotte, 2020). We asked respondents Likert scale survey questions about the role of First Nations in water governance, and whether ‘environmental flows’ – an approach adopted within the new legislation to secure water for the environment – could be used to meet First Nation water needs. We introduced the idea of a ‘cultural flow’, an Australian policy instrument providing a quantity of water to be managed by Indigenous Peoples for their own water security needs. We provided a short example in the survey and asked respondents for their opinion on this. Finally, we gave respondents the scope to provide their perspective on water governance and this survey.

A census sampling approach was adopted in this survey. Respondents were contacted by phone and email drawn from the British Columbia government online directory. A total of 124 respondents were contacted in total, with 73 completing (a 59% response rate). Following Dimock (2019), we identified three generational cohorts within our sample: Millennials born between 1981 and 1996 (ages 21–36); Generation X born between 1965 and 1980 (ages 37–51); and Baby Boomers born between 1945 and 1964 (ages 52–71). Table 1 presents information on the personal characteristics of the sample, with the majority identifying as men, Generation X, with 10–20 years of work experience, a Master's degree, and in technical/scientific roles.

We note there are limitations to the survey, such as construct measure and social desirability bias; we mitigated this through the use of an anonymous online survey and by asking different questions around the same issues for internal validation (Fisher, 1993). According to Fisher (1993), anonymity can mitigate the pressure to respond in a socially desirable way, especially when direct questions are applied. We also had a high response rate from a census survey, which provided enough of a sample size to generate statistical analysis, while also offsetting self-selection bias.

We first generated mean responses for the self-reported and Likert scale questions. We also broke our sample down by experience (four categories), with the expectation that this may influence attitudes similar to life experience: the longer an individual stayed within an organization, the more likely their views were to become more similar, following the theory of exit, voice and loyalty espoused by Hirschman (1970), and observed among US federal government workers by Lee & Whitford (2008) and job position (three categories, and we note that water management is more interdisciplinary within the organization so we divided this on the basis of job responsibility rather than professional discipline).

Due to the ordinal and discrete nature of individual Likert scale items and small sample size, we used non-parametric tests to measure for differences in ranked means/medians and what proportion of respondents expressed agreement or disagreement (de Winter & Dodou, 2010). We then compared differences across the generations for every statement, using a Kruskal–Wallis test, which is appropriate when dealing with small populations.

We did observe individual differences for a position in one case, which was limited to one area (see subsequent discussion following the next sections); we found far more individual differences associated with generational cohorts. For the post-hoc analysis, we ran Mann–Whitney U tests, which are used to conduct pairwise comparisons amongst the independent groups to understand where the differences exist (Ruxton & Beauchamp, 2008). All analyses were performed using Stata/IC 15.0 for Windows. Statistical significance levels were 1, 5 and 10%.

We first asked respondents a series of questions about organizational culture, such as whether the organization valued: treating others with respect; talking straight; transparency; getting things done; and, extending trust (Covey & Merrill, 2008). We found a high level of agreement across all these questions, suggesting a clear and consistent organizational culture; and theory tells us that for organizations to be effective, there needs to be shared consensus around its mission (Bart & Baetz, 1998) and a coherent organizational culture (Mahler, 1997).

We concluded by asking respondents whether: ‘My personal values align closely with my organization's values’, with 55% agreeing overall, 28% being neutral, and the remainder disagreeing. We examined whether generational differences explained any variation in responses for value alignment (Figure 3) and found a distinct generational difference. Generation X respondents were more likely to agree to value alignment (mean value 3.7) and significantly less likely to be neutral compared to Millennials (p < 0.05). We also asked respondents to agree or disagree with the statement: ‘We are original as an organization; the way we have done things has been innovative and different’, and in this case, Millennials were significantly more likely to disagree compared to Generation X (p < 0.1); while Baby Boomers showed neutrality towards this statement (mean value 2.9). Boomers were most likely to agree to the statement, ‘We concentrate on ensuring the security of our organization, we don't take risks’, while Millennials and Generation X were mixed and more likely to be neutral.

In terms of statistical significance, Gen X did have a higher organizational value alignment, while also seeing the organization as more original and innovative, relative to the other two generations (Figure 3). These results suggest mixed attitudes towards innovativeness and risk taking. We did explore whether these were correlated to the length of time working in the organization but did not find a significant relationship.

We then examined respondents' support for different policy principles: one set of questions around the use of more market-based approaches, such as the introduction of water pricing and attitudes towards water ownership (Figure 3); and the second set around approaches for increasing First Nations involvement in water governance (Figure 3).

We found significant generational differences in preferred approaches: Millennials were less likely to agree to water pricing and to the statement that ‘environmental flows would satisfy the water needs and values of First Nations’ (p < 0.1 when compared to Gen X); they were more likely to agree that First Nations were stakeholders in water management, and to see themselves ‘as aware of First Nations water needs and interests’ (p < 0.05 when compared to Baby Boomers). Baby Boomers and Gen X did not show significant differences when compared.

We do note one significant place where there were individual differences that were not associated with generational cohorts. We asked whether respondents believed the ‘status quo in water management is working’ and found more people disagreeing (one-third of respondents) than agreeing it was working (17%), and with the largest group expressing neutrality (neither agree or disagree) (45%). We found differences were related to job position: senior managers were more likely to disagree that the status quo was working (p < 0.1), while technical staff were more likely to agree that the status quo was working (p < 0.05).

In this study, generational differences were found to shape perceptions of organizational culture, mission, and preferred water policy approaches. Most differences were between Millennials and Gen X and Boomers. For instance, Millennials were more likely to disagree their organization was innovative and different, were more supportive of First Nations issues, and were less likely to agree to water pricing (particularly compared to Gen X). While Boomers stood in contrast in terms of both culture and approaches: they were neutral around the question of whether their organization was innovative, were less likely to see First Nations as stakeholders, and were less likely to see themselves as aware of First Nation needs and interests to water. Gen X in comparison had higher value alignment and placed greater importance on economic priorities and less on environmental stewardship.

We hypothesize these generational differences are rooted in ‘social frames’, or the shared experiences of each generation, and these manifest into attitudes that affect how cohorts see and interpret water policy. We note from the open-ended comments, for example, that one Boomer questioned whether a cultural flow was even worth considering; this reflects a similar sentiment documented in Australia by Finn & Jackson (2011), where non-Indigenous policy makers believed environmental flows were sufficient for accommodating Indigenous water values. While a Millennial in our study expressed, ‘I think having First Nations water values in the forefront can only be good for water sustainability in BC’. Another Millennial explicitly reflected on the generational differences they felt with more senior managers, who they stated were ‘Stale, Pale and Male’. These differences could be a source of conflict and tension within public water agencies, which could frustrate policy change.

How these value differences, or distinct social frames, play out in water policy agencies is not well understood. We note that these differences could be disruptive for organizational culture – thereby interfering with cohesion and cooperation, and slowing the pace and responsiveness of policy change. Distinct and competing social frames may also interfere with organizational sensemaking and learning – without structured and supportive processes for within-organization learning, the potential for knowledge exchange and innovation may be limited. We also note the potential for policy makers to learn from those outside, reflecting their ‘social value broker’ role by Kennedy et al. (1998), may either be supported or hindered by different social frames. Structures to reconcile distinct and competing social frames, in ways that respectfully build understanding, are critical as we move towards co-governance with Indigenous Peoples (Nikolakis et al., 2023).

This exploratory study found that individual policy makers in public water policy agencies see things differently from one another – they have different ‘social frames’. These differences, appearing consistently across generational cohorts in different ways, may explain a lack of consensus on certain issues, which have manifested in only incremental change to date in provincial water policy. Rather than viewing these generational differences as barriers to be overcome, we argue that understanding these generational differences could potentially create learning opportunities within public agencies by articulating them within the organization, and understanding how value-diversity is internally mediated and reconciled. However, we note that some values may be irreconcilable and harmonizing values to build a coherent culture – that in theory, fosters organizational effectiveness – may be impossible.

Building structured and supported processes for at least deliberating differences could produce more understanding and consensus within the public agency. The organization may be able to explore internally the factors shaping individuals' judgments on what problems are important, and the appropriateness of certain types of policy instruments or ideas. Developing internal mechanisms and processes to understand and explore these differences may allow the organization to achieve if not some form of consensus, at least a better understanding of the issues at play, which may enhance their ability to adopt and implement new policies.

Further research could explore the effect of generational differences on policy implementation and policy learning at larger scales and also analyse what individual values are core (unlikely to change), and those ones that are secondary (and more dynamic) and what role these may play in policy development. Also, a deeper empirical understanding could trace the development of organizational schema for sensemaking, which could yield important insights on the tensions between individual and collective schema in the policy process: are there irreconcilable differences that prevent the formation of collective schema, and what are they? To what extent is tension between different viewpoints productive? Finally, an important research question is to document the ways leaders can take advantage of the internal debates within their organizations, where internal generational differences and ‘social frames’ may reflect those differences in the larger public. This area of inquiry has practical importance, guiding public agencies to harness generational differences, to promote learning and consensus, and thus enable innovation and adaptive policy.

Data cannot be made publicly available; readers should contact the corresponding author for details.

The authors declare there is no conflict.